This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments Miami C‑class Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Miami, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Miami metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.MiamiWikipedia:WikiProject MiamiTemplate:WikiProject MiamiMiami articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Correction and Detention Facilities C‑class (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Correction and Detention Facilities, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Correction and Detention FacilitiesWikipedia:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesTemplate:WikiProject Correction and Detention FacilitiesCorrection and Detention Facilities articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Company edits

• The company PR manager edits Wikipedia to show favorable info then, when called on it, admits they are his edits. Where is the controversy? Wikipedia gets new editors, editing articles about themselves or their company every week. They try to make it sound good, people call them on it, explain COI etc and then they usually either get with the program or go away. In this case, he went away. This is classic WP:RECENTISM. There is nothing enduring about the coverage and since GEO is no longer buying the naming rights, it's pretty unlikely to be an issue again. The "controversy" is really little more than Wikipedia editors getting upset over a PR guy doing what a company pays him to do. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's editors should get upset when a corporation's spokesperson has been spending a great deal of time scrubbing the page in question of any negative content. Abraham Cohen is not the spokesperson for GEO, Pablo Paez is. Paez set to scrubbing the GEO pages years ago, if memory serves. The pages of course had massive deletions of well sourced text that were replaced by a roughly equal amount of corporate boilerplate, I'm guessing to conceal the prodigious amount of changes. Cohen at first denied making the changes, the first he'd ever made anywhere to Wikipedia pages. Then he claimed that he had allowed others in his shop to use his log in, though it had never been used before. You've presented yourself as a neutral editor, in the spirit of Wikipedia, but in fact you seem to be adamantly opposed to balanced presentations of this corporation, and you minimize the corporate whitewashing engaged in by others for GEO. You'll recall that after he was outed, Cohen used the corporate IPN to do further editing, only to get caught again by some observant editor(s?). Activist (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I note, Niteshift36 that you've made 38 of the last 107 or so edits to the GEO TALK page, since Cohen was outed. If we apply the "Duck test," where would that lead us? Activist (talk) 22:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I further note that you've made 32 edits to the GEO Group main article, with the last signed edit by Abraham Cohen being made February 20th, 2013, though the GEO IPN was used to make subsequent sock puppet edits not long after but before you started your signed edits. Activist (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• First off, I've edited only a few article lately due to off Wiki events. If looked you could see that my edit history covers a wide range of topics and articles. Even someone of your limited capacity should be able to see that. Second, you are counting numbers of edits without context. For example, if I remove the a word and fail to change the "an" to "a", then correct that, there are 2 edits but really only one change. Third, reverting your POV edits shouldn't count. Lastly, if you have an allegation about sockpuppetry, then go to SPI. I'll expect a public apology when that investigation shows I am not editing under any other name or IP. My edits are always signed. There was no "before you started signing". So take your baseless allegation and go fuck yourself. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that you read what I'd written once more. Cohen and/or GEO clearly engaged in sockpuppetry when he or some other company hack made the edits. I never accused you of doing so. If you would like me to examine all those edits you made to see how many were geared to cleaning up the corporation's image, I'd be glad to run up a chart. I would urge you to abandon the gross vulgarities and insults to other editors to which you seem inclined. Activist (talk) 22:59, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And I'd suggest that you back up your allegation at SPI. You've made the allegation here with your bullshit implication. Analyze whatever you want. And at the end, when SPI clears me, I will expect your public apology. And if you don't want to hear vulgarities, then clean up your act. Again, back it up at SPI or apologize. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yours is a "straw man" argument. I've never accused you of sockpuppetry. Others rightfully accused Cohen/GEO of engaging in that behavior. There's no need for me to go to SPI to have something I haven't done arbitrated. The edit I made about "for-profit" prisons clarifies the issue for those for whom the situation is novice, and the purpose of Wikipedia is to inform, is it not? The edit about the CSC purchase is indisputable: The corporation was faced with a mid-eight figure judgment for a negligent death in Texas and the solution for the seller was to unload, declare bankruptcy or liquidate. He chose the former which enabled him to cheaply salvage the youth component, a deal sweetener I'm guessing GEO offered to ameliorate the sting of the corporate collapse. That youth component is one of which reporter Chris Kirkham has recently raised the public awareness regarding the continuing abusive nature of that management. That rump corporation is linked right on the Wikipedia page if you'll bother to take a look. Stop reversing legitimate edits. They are res ipsa loquitur. I should not need to laboriously explain each clarification to you, one who apparently may not be listening, to justify reversing your whimsical or otherwise motivated reverts. Lastly, stop using abusive and/or obscene language toward me and others, or I certainly will ask administrators to take a look at your behavior. Activist (talk) 02:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Blah, blah, blah.....Whether by implication or directly, you are making an allegation that I am editing at the behest of GEO. I'm not. Go to ANI and make the allegation and when you find a gross lack of support, you can apologize publicly. I don't give a crap about your threats. DO something about it. If you want to actually discuss the specific edits, start an actual discussion on them. Trying to shove them in the middle of you false, bullshit based allegations about me working for GEO isn't productive. Just to be clear: I do not work for GEO or any of their subsidiaries, never have and have NEVER made an edit on behalf of ANY company. Now, either get off this crap or take it to ANI. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You made your first edit on the GEO page on 4 March, while the controversies over the GEO whitewashing and the FAU brouhaha were swirling. Activist (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And? Do you think that maybe I ended up at the page because I saw something in the news and came to see what the article reflected? Are you seriously so dense that you never considered that? Again, take it to SPI. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, please discontinue the personal attacks. Activist (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm playing your game sunshine. You claim you didn't make an allegation because of the wording. That was a question, not a personal attack. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So Niteshift36... are you suggesting that you are a private citizen who is so impressed by the good work of GEO group that you monitor the page in an attempt to improve its public image? Simnel (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no suggestion, except for agenda driven editors who want to make allegations they can't provide any evidence for. I am stating, very clearly, that I have never worked for GEO in any way shape or form. What I have done is put this page on my watchlist. I'm not impressed by anything GEO does. Nor am I impressed by POV warriors who think Wikipedia exists to help further their agenda. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any reason for it. It's an opinionated term and truly not relevant to THIS article about GEO. What is the specific reason it is so vital? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing indicating that this facility is notable. If it isn't notable on it's own, then why is it being shoved into a list of notable facilities? Niteshift36 (talk) 03:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are the criteria for notability? Th Reeves facility has been in the media a lot, just like Broward has, for example. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• So then let's discuss how much coverage and for what. Right now, it's simply being shoved into the article with no apparent reason. Is there something notable happening there? Is it something that will be of enduring relevance or is it more of an issue of being in the current news cycle? Broward has had some more enduring coverage, so I haven't really had an issue with the inclusion. I have taken issue with some POV language and trying to make it a play by play news story. But the inclusion and substantial reasons for it are sound. To be honest, I kind of question the detention facility in Colorado being in here too. The "source" really only mentions GEO as part of an email address. Seems a little like grasping to me. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Reeves Detention Center apparently had some previous enduring relevance that has quelled. It seems to have revolved around a serious riot that was well covered by the media at the time, and the death of an epileptic inmate due to malpractice, Jesus Manuel Galindo. Here's an idea of it:

http://www.texasobserver.org/the-pecos-insurrection/

https://sites.google.com/site/transborderproject/medical-claims-and-malpractice-at-west-texas-immigrant-prison

http://www2.sacurrent.com/printstory.asp?id=72044

And here, the former warden brags about cutting medical costs at the facility, second story:

http://www.pecos.net/news/arch2002a/112502p.htm

The facility is at least worthy of mention in the article, both because of its size and because of its prominence in the media. I'm not sure if it merits a paragraph in the Controversies section, but I see no reason why it shouldn't be at least mentioned. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 07:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• And see, this is how progress is made. You actually presented a reason and discussed it. So it makes more sense now. I appreciate you actually discussing instead of just telling me it's notable and never truly articulating why. I would question that last source. That's a 2002 story and trying to tie it directly to something 7 years later is going to take some work. Did any of the 2009/2011 sources reference that warden as a contributing factor? Niteshift36 (talk) 07:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the first link mentions him: "Four months into their (Physicians Network Association, PNA) contract, then-warden Rudy Franco lauded PNA at a county commissioners meeting for drastically reducing the number of surgeries, X-rays, outside visits and other medical services, the latter of which had dropped from 3,148 to 222." But this point is more about PNA than GEO, although GEO was administering the facility at the time, as it is currently. Anyway, there was a massive riot and at least one negligent death that were reported, and I think at least a mention of the facility in the Facilities section makes sense due to its media prominence. I'll make this change soon unless anyone has any qualms. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 07:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No issue here. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Geo Group Expands Its Stable of Former Top Federal Officials (2014-07-23). Is anyone aware of additional sources that discuss the issue of the board of directors? IjonTichy (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What "issue" are we talking about? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism sections are generally to be avoided in articles. This should be broken down and included in a corporations history section, as appropriate. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]